Annotated 50-19
Gravedust’s line here means a little more to me now. I’ve had to sunset a relationship in the last couple of months where the differences were just irreconcilable. I kind of had a feeling it was going to end this way for a while, but I ignored what I could to keep things going until I couldn’t. I still wish the party well in a general sense…but my trust of them has been broken to a point where I now wouldn’t accept an apology even if it were offered. So I’m not part of their story any more. That puts me somewhere between Gravedust and Bandit in this metaphor, I guess.
Just in case you were worried that Jemmington was too morally upright to think of stealing from his employers, second panel has you covered.
FB: These independent toll collectors are really getting out of hand.
Hello! Happened to read an old Watterson interview that made me think of you:
“The whole pleasure for me is having the opportunity to do a comic strip for a living, and now that I’ve finally got that I’m not going to give it away. It also gives me complete creative control. Any time somebody else has their hand in the ink it’s changing the product, and I enjoy the responsibility for this product. I’m willing to take the blame if the strip goes down the drain, and I want the credit if it succeeds. So long as it has my name on it, I want it to be mine. I don’t know, if you don’t have that kind of investment in it…I guess that’s the difference between looking at it as an art and looking at it as a job. I’m not interested in setting up an assembly line to produce this thing more efficiently. There are certainly people who could letter the strip better than I do; I don’t enjoy lettering very much, but that’s the way I write and that belongs in the strip because the strip is a reflection of me. If cartoonists would look at this more as an art than as a part time job or a get-rich-quick scheme, I think comics overall would be better. I think there’s a tremendous potential to be tapped.”
I respect the heck out of Watterson, and it’s always nice to get some insight into his process. But that isn’t how I do things at all. If not for collaboration, I couldn’t work in comics, because my visual skills simply aren’t up to the task. And I often find it beneficial to have someone else’s hand in the ink, someone who might see something that I missed. I think I am done with evenly split co-writing duties, though. I need there to be a certain hierarchy.
Yep, I really do get what Watterson is getting at here and he’s truly not as critical as he sounds in this excerpt. For example, he acknowledges that Pogo’s Walt Kelly employs assistants and Pogo is one of his favorite strips and major influences. It’s not that collaborative comicking (or “by committee” as it’s often said in derision) can’t produce good results but rather, it’s Watterson’s own philosophy and artistic statement.
There’s a webcomic artist who I respect enough not to name, but she has taken that philosophy to the extreme and believes that all collaborative art efforts are worthless by definition. Her own input has greatly slowed down with time so I wonder if she’s now starting to see the value and potential in having people help you carry some of the load.
Is this a webcomic you wouldn’t mind sharing? I can understand if they are private about their work of course. But I do always like finding new good webcomics!
She’s got a finished webcomic called Mare Internum and another in Hiatus called The Meek.
I have dozens of other webcomic recommendations if you want them lol
I LOVED Mare Internum, and I’ve been following The Meek whenever it updates.
I’m always open to a new comic, if I see a reply!
I also greatly respect Watterson, and what he did certainly worked for him, but in addition to what T noted, that “art over money” advice is pretty unhelpful for the vast majority. Watterson started from a point of financial security, good money from the strip and royalties on the books which sold well for long after the strip ended, and was therefore able to turn down the millions that might have come on top of that from merchandising. But for artists without financial security, that’s not the relevant question, & condensing it into “you should care about art not money” tends to be used against them both socially and financially.
(As I recall, Watterson was pretty lucky even by the standards of his time: I remember him writing that his contract with the syndicate was extremely one-sided, such that they could take the strip from him if he stopped and have other people produce it including merchandising; but they voluntarily let him renegotiate the contract and get full creative and licensing control.
I wanted to write the same thing as you, regarding the fact that once you’ve “made it” it’s easy to talk about art over money.
… and yet there is a point to it: Lots of things become worse if the person making them is in it more for the money (or the success/fame…whatever) than for just doing it. That’s because everyone is better doing whatever they enjoy and value than doing whatever they believe others will pay money for. So doing it for the art *can* actually help become more successful. It can of course also mean the opposite, especially if your own, uncompromised taste is actually not shard by a lot people, but you figure out how to change your output so that it gains appeal (or becomes easier to produce in larger quantities, or …). Although that simultaneously means you’re no longer following your own instincts about what’s good and what isn’t, so it also creates some risk, since you might have to guess at other peoples’ taste now — which would make me at least incredibly nervous since I usually have a relatively good idea about what I like and don’t like, but a really bad sense on how something is going to be received by others.
So if I were to try and make a living making art, I’d pour a huge amount of care into making something that conforms to my own taste. If it were well-received, I’d keep doing that. If not, I’d conclude that not enough people share my taste, and look for other work. I might also become depressive at that point … so I’m totally fine that I don’t have to live from art. It must be messy.
For some reason, “Stand and Deliver” by Adam and the Ants went through my head as I was reading this.
The flashback framework allows for considerable leaps in time. Smart writing, efficient storytelling.
Wow. I didn’t think there was much of a time jump between previous page and this one. I always assumed the cane was an act to make it seem like Bandit couldn’t possibly be involved in any shenanigans, sort of like how Reynolds being between Byron-the-statesman and Bandit-the-rebel (as well as Bandit’s “hatred” of Byron) provides a good cover for both of them working together on the same project(s) without attracting suspicion.
Clearly you’re right, and wow did I read/remember the subtext in the last and next couple of pages wrong.
First read, I was wondering if you where setting up a conflict between the gnomes and the new guard. It was nice surprise to see Bandit was isolating her self from her old friend so she could carry on with her more rebellious missions without dragging them into any possible repercussions now they are in leadership position. Bandit went from a petty thief to a true Robin Hood like character, that’s a great character arc.